CHONGTHAM YAIMBI DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition is filed by the 5 (five) elected Councillors of Wangjing-Lamding Nagar Panchayat, Thoubal, Manipur, namely (1) Chongtham Yaimbi Devi, (2) Laishram Maimu Singh, (3) Maibam Rashini Devi, (4) Pechimayum Roni Devi and (5) Narengbam Binoy Singh respectively, for a direction to the respondent No. 3, Executive Officer of the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat, Thoubal District to perform his duty as contemplated by Section 31 (2) (i) and (ii) of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter refers to as the "act"), without further delay by convening a special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the sitting Chairperson, respondent No. 4 and the Vice-Chairperson, respondent No. 5 as they have lost their confidence in the functioning of the present Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson in pursuance of the letter dated 11. 6. 2007.

(2.) HEARD Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General, Manipur as assisted by Mr. S. Suresh, learned Advocate and also Mr. Jagjit, learned Addl. G. A. , who appears for the respondents-1 and 2, Mr. K. Rabei Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. S. Jayanta, learned Sr. Counsel being assistd by Mr. O. Kiranjit Singh, Advocate appearing for the respondents-4 and 5 respectively.

(3.) THE simple facts which require to be narrated in order to decide the issue involved in the instant writ petition are that the petitioners' case being that out of the 9 elected councilors of the Wangjing-Lamding Nagar Panchayat, Thoubal Manipur, the petitioners, 5 in number, who were elected from ward, Nos-9, 4, 3, 7, 5, submitted a requisition letter dated 11. 6. 07 (Annexure-A/8 to the writ petition) to the Executive Officer, respondent No. 3 for convening a special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairperson (respondent No. 4) and the vice Chairperson (Respndent No. 5) of the said Nagar Panchayat, as they, after assuming the charge of their Office, had started monopolizing the function of the said Nagar Panchayat as their personal Institute without taking consent of the other councilors including the petitioners and also they started releasing fund in respect of the scheme undertaken by the Nagar Panchayat. As the respondents-4 and 5 used public office for their personal interest, the petitioners in the instant writ petition, who have endured the various omissions and commission of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson have come to the conclusion that in case the nature of function of the respondents-4 and 5 is allowed to continue, the aforesaid Nagar Panchayat as a whole would meet slow death which would be quite detrimental to the larger public interest. Keeping the above facts, in mind, the writ petitioners have made a requisition on 11. 6. 07 to the E. O. , respondent No. 3, to convene meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion against the sitting Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the said Nagar Panchayat in terms of the Section 31 of the Act, which was received by the office of the Executive Officer under R. R. No. 89/wlnp/2006-07 at 2 p. m. the aforesaid letter was also endorsed to the Government, Dy. Commissioner Thoubal and other important functionaries including the Circle M. L. A. Since the Executive Officer did not take up any action in terms of the Section 31 of the Act on the plea that for convening said meeting for no confidence motion, approval from the Govt. is required in view of the letter dated 31. 5. 03 of the Joint Secretary, MAHUD, Govt. of Manipur addressed to all the Executive Officers of the Municipality and Nagar Panchayat and as such the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat under his office letter dated 19. 6. 07 moved the Govt. for giving permission to convence the meeting in pursuance of the Joint representation dated 11. 6. 07. Being the aforesaid letter dated 19. 6. 07 of the Executive Officer for seeking permission from the Govt. to give approval for convening the special meeting is without any authority of law and the aforesaid letter dated 31. 5. 03 had also no legal basis as considered by this Court in W. P (C) No. 1037 of 2004, particularly this Court observed that Section 31 of the Act nowhere stated that approval of the Govt. is necessary for convening special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson and the Executive Officer should not have acted upon the said letter of the Govt. dated 31. 5. 03 as held by this Court in W. P (C) No. 830 of 2003. Even after the specific observation of this Court, the Executive Officer, respondent No. 3, sought permission vide aforesaid letter dated 19. 6. 07 only to frustrate the statutory prescription and on the exertion and pressures from the respondent No. 4. Hence the present writ petition.